For some years now, the poster who goes by the name of ''Textusa'' has refused to publish posts which pose questions she either cannot or would prefer not to answer.
Textusa likes to claim that she withholds posts because they contain abusive language. In fact this is rarely the case - usually they simply point out the flaws in her ridiculous notions
So if she refuses to publish your posts and you want to have your say, send them to me. I'll put them on here for you

Translate

Saturday, 30 August 2014

As ever, Textusa is choosing to ignore difficult questions, mainly because she has absolutely no answer.As described in an earlier post, Textusa made some very silly claims about the guests at Mark Warner. For those of you that have forgotten, here is what she said, and our analysis:

We agree fully with you. We would divide the swingers present in PdL into 3 groups:

Group 1 (the group you mention) – those there who were swinging and desired only to be kept out of the spotlight. They didn’t contribute with anything to the cover-up and have been absolutely passive about this whole affair. We see no reason for them to be outed. Never was blog’s objective to “persecute” the swinging per se – an activity we neither subscribe to nor condemn but accept it as it’s engaged by consensual adults – but in what it pertains in the obstruction of justice. If our next door neighbour was there swinging and enjoyed herself, good for her and her husband, and if she was there and didn’t, then they shouldn’t have gone. In either case it’s none of our business and we don’t want to know. Nor see any necessity for anyone else to know.

Okay - so you maintain that this was a swingers resort and all the guests were swingers, including all those who, like the McCanns et al had, for reasons best known to themselves, decided to reduce their shagging opportunities by saddling themselves with umpteen small children? In that case, according to your demented scenario they all knew, and have always known, that the story in the public arena is horseshit, yet not one of them has ever tried to sell their story or get their hands on the reward. Just hundreds of people quite content to obstruct justice and pass on the opportunity to make a shed load of money because although they would shag anything with a pulse, they get all Victorian maiden about anyone knowing they do?You can see my problem with this, can't you?Okay, so that's group one. What about the others?

Group 2 – those there who were swinging and desired only to be kept out of the spotlight. They didn’t contribute with anything to the cover-up there or elsewhere but have through these years participated actively in the disinformation campaigns to ensure the attention remained centred on the couple. Even if we thought these people should be accountable for their share in obstructing justice, we are fully aware that will not happen. We do solely rely on the justice provided by only incorruptible system that we know of: the individual conscience.

So, group two have ''participated actively in the disinformation campaigns'' have they?How?What is it they have done, because there are very few people who have commented publicly, or given interviews to the media. Are you saying those who have fall into group two? What constitutes the ''disinformation campaigns''? What possible motivation could these people have to participate, even passively, in a massive conspiracy?Okay - what about the rest?

Group 3 – those there who were swinging and volunteered to help in the cover-up. These have to accountable for their acts.

''Volunteered to help with the cover-up''Now there's a claim and a half.Textusa is saying that these people, in knowledge of a crime involving the disappearance of a small child, volunteered to help to cover it up.Why? Who asked them to do so? How did they cover it up? What lies did they tell? Did they actively lie - providing false alibis, for instance - or passively neglect to mention that the whole resort was full of people getting their rocks off with the neighbour's missus?More importantly, how was this organised and co-ordinated overnight, with hundreds of people, without one word ever getting out in the last seven years? Or did the management of Mark Warner simply slide a note under the door saying ''Dear Guest, we hope you have enjoyed your stay. A little reminder that check out is at 11.00am. Reception will be happy to store your luggage until you leave. One other small thing - as you know a little girl disappeared last night, and we are about to be besieged by the press. We're sure you would rather your workmates did not discover that your ''quiet fortnight in Normandy with the kids'' was actually two weeks spent horizontal jogging with some people you had never met before, while the kids made pasta pictures supervised by a nanny with a diploma in ''Advanced graphic art for children; durum wheat products free expression''Consequently, we require you to keep your mouths firmly shut, so that the photos taken with the hidden camera behind the spare toilet roll remain absolutely private - we take our responsibility under the Data Protection Act very seriously. Thank you for your co-operation, we hope to see you again. For the sake of the environment, please recycle''These questions, in one form or another, have been put to Textusa, politely and in brief. She refused to publish any of them as, coward that she is, she doesn't ''do'' hard questionsSo come on then, you utter fraud, who are these people, what possible reason could they have to behave in the manner you claim, how was it organised and how has it remained secret?The truth, Textusa, is that there was no evidence whatsoever that this resort was ever used for or promoted swinging and that not only was there no time nor opportunity for hundreds of people to be coached into their role, they would have had no motivation whatsoever to commit a serious crime in order to assist people they did not know from Adam.And you are an absolute fraud and coward for repeatedly refusing to answer these questionsIn response to another question, Textusa makes the following claims

As we said, the “abduction” decision wasn’t theirs to make but we cannot disregard being them to propose it to the adequate decision “echelons”.

In fact, taking into account that they, the T9, were the ones who messed things up, we think the initial meeting to access what to do next, consisted in very few people besides the T9. In that meeting we imagine suggestions that became scenarios which in turn became the proposed solution.

Once the decision made by whoever could make it, the T9 became simple pieces of a game way above themselves. But they weren’t manipulated. They were moved pieces. The first implies having a will - and being fooled - while the latter only implies obedience

In this she claims that an initial meeting was held in which a conspiracy was organised for these guests to participate in.Given that the McCann party are mostly accounted for on the night Madeleine disappeared, and all the following day which they spent at the police station being questioned, where and when did this supposed ''meeting'' take place, and with whom? Given that most of the guests went home on the Saturday morning, that the place was by then heaving with press, is Textusa seriously suggesting that someone, prior to the McCann party being dragged off to the plod shop, organised a meeting in which an elaborate ''story'' was created and communicated to all and sundry?Again, it's complete horseshit and Textusa knows this. Again, she has refused to publish or answer questions relating to it as she is a fraud and a coward.She also insults the intelligence of her readers.Or at least she would, if any of them had any. Given that they seem to believe this nonsense, one can only assume that they are, to put it in the vernacular, thick as pigshit.

Monday, 25 August 2014

It's always interesting to read a Textaloon's response to a Textusa post.The most common review consists mainly of one word.''Brilliant'''Brilliant' is Textaloon for ''I have no fucking clue what you are on about, and I only read a few sentences. I have no intention of saying so, because I am a total gobshite''So, what drove the Gobshite Massif to deliver its ringing endorsement this time? Well, let's see shall we.........

Doomed Pieces, Emerging Heroes

(Textusa's commute to work is interrupted by an irate reader)

01 Aug 2014 03:57: “Kate and Gerry McCann have filed a case against The Times in the High Court. Interesting. No details made public yet.”

If this is true, let us congratulate whoever came up this brilliant move on behalf of David Cameron’s interests in the Maddie Affair.

Oh fuck - here we go........

We did think about how Mr Cameron could come out of this a hero and struggled to find a way and out of the blue someone goes and slaps us with a solution not only for him but for Rupert Murdoch as well!

A solution that makes BOTH of them come out as absolute victors! That has to deserve, and does, one huge “well done” from us! If true, we repeat.

And the delicious thing is… we at Textusa are the ONLY ones who can congratulate this!

Indeed. Most of the others still possess their sanity.

All those who pretend to be looking the other way cannot have a reasonable explanation as to what is going on. For them, this little car (McCanns) has simply decided to drive against a locomotive (The Times/Rupert Murdoch) with the intent of pushing it back down the line.

''Pretend to be looking the other way'' - Textusa shorthand for anyone who thinks she's off her head.

If you believe a car can push an incoming train, please do NOT try this at home! If you “believe” in it, well, there’s not much one can do when before self-inflicted “beliefs”, is there?

For all others blogs/forums the McCanns are that almighty powerful couple who because they hold some sort of humongous secret have brought UK to its knees all by themselves. The almighty powerful McCanns can and have achieved all in 7 years. According to them, that is.

Like your idiotic claim that the entire story was contrived overnight by hundreds of people who had never met each other before, for instance?

And if that is so, then the The Times has to be afraid. Very afraid. Because those who can singlehandedly bring a country to its knees can certainly take on one of its papers. So we cannot understand why these people say that the McCanns stand no chance against Murdoch.

Shouldn’t it be the other way around? Mr Murdoch is the one to be afraid, after all, according to them, the McCanns are the ones who control the nation and that includes the courts!

Whatever can have given them that idea, eh? Maybe they have read your posts, claiming the McCanns are at the centre of a massive conspiracy involving the police forces and governments of two nations, the Catholic church, several TV stations, the world's press and hundreds of holidaymakers and staff of a holiday resort...........

Either the McCanns are powerful, mightily so, and are able to face whomever with the greatest ease, or they aren’t and that makes us right, it was never them holding UK hostage all these years.

We, as you know, say the McCanns are simply a couple of nobodies who found themselves at the centre of a hurricane which they indeed started but never, ever controlled. We have stated very clearly that we think them to be mere pieces on a board. Minor pieces.

We have been exposing the McCanns for the narcissistic little nobodies they always were once decided, not by them, the abduction hoax was the way to go on that early evening of May 3rd 2007.

Have you? Have you really? So it wasn't decided by them, eh? So your claim that Gerry wandered about the streets of PdL carrying someone else's child as a ''decoy'' - who told him to do that, then?

We have also read that the McCanns must be doing this because the fund is depleted and the absolutely overambitious couple have gone for the biggest source of replenishment possible. That makes as much sense as a hungry hyena deciding to go and get some food right from the lion’s mouth while he’s chewing it!

It worked for them in the past, dingbat.

It may be on the brink of death by starvation but knows that each minute it breathes, it’s a minute it is indeed still breathing. Fools are fools and the crazy are crazy but not even a foolishly crazy hyena would be that lunatic. Unless it wanted to commit suicide. But then it wouldn’t be about the food.

Suicide. Do keep the word in mind, it will come useful later. No, we’re not implying any sort of physical violence or harm, self-inflicted or not, to the McCanns. As you’ll see there’s a context in which we want to use the word.

Like everyone else we also see this trial (McCann v The Times), if true, as little David defying Goliath to a duel under the scorching Sun.

Who else sees it like that?

But apparently we are the only ones to be able to see that this time the slingshot does not hold a stone but a raw egg. To make certain no damage is caused in case the David repeats the feat and hits Goliath’s forehead with it. This time, no one wants to see Goliath hurt.

Well, maybe most other people don't see it like that because they are largely sane.

The Times is owned by Mr Murdoch. Who owns The Sun. The Sun where the likes, among others, Lazzeri & Kelly work. Antonella & Lorraine, 2 fierce cats who one got the feeling would throw themselves under a train to protect the couple.

Oh, if only.........

The Sun, we don’t need to remind anyone, lead the campaigns in protecting the McCanns and slandering Amaral. With a little help from NOTW. And Sky News. All owned by Rupert Murdoch.

Who presumably you picture sitting with a white car on his knee, ordering his editors to leave the McCanns alone? Sorry to bring you down to earth but it was the Times who ran the story about the file and e-Fits being withheld, was it not? So how does that fit in with your David and Goliath analogy?

So this is more than biting the hand that is feeding us but more like the sawing, between us and the tree, of the highest branch of the tallest hyperion on which one is sitting on.

Sheer folly. Not just crazy folly but an absolutely unreasonable and illogical one. Or suicide.

But what do people say when seeing a car heading straight towards an incoming train? They say the car stands no chance.

Really? Talk about stating the obvious.

It’s like me saying if I drop this rock it will most likely fall. It’s not likely, it’s certain. That car will be smashed to smithereens by the train. That is evident. That is obvious. That is certain.

The real question is to ask what THAT car is doing on THAT track driving on purpose towards THAT train and heading straight for THAT more than obvious doom.

No, the real question is ''What the fuck are you on about?'' As usual......

Because, just looking at the proposed scenario, THAT car can only be THERE for one of two reasons: a viciously allergic reaction to the slightest sign of sanity or suicide.

We know the McCanns aren’t mad and we don’t think they’re suicidal. So which is it? It has to one or the other but we know it’s neither.

Let’s go back in time a little.

Oh god - here we go.....

We think Mr Cameron was, and rightfully so, really upset for having been convinced, in our opinion, by Rebekah Brooks, to reopen the case because it would be “slam-dunk”.

'' because it would be “slam-dunk” Oh really? She convinced him to reopen the case because it would be ''slam-dunk'''? Perhaps you would care to explain what you mean?

Both Mr Cameron and Mrs Brooks overlooked that although both were indeed Deciders in 2010/2011 neither of them were back in 2007/2008.

Really? So how did this escape them?

Mr Cameron wasn’t in power then so we imagine he was informed of the affair in its largest chunks and once he reached power he wasn’t adequately briefed on it. After all, it was just one more story of upper-class peccadilloes as so many others going around – and this one didn’t involve paedophilia – and a Prime-Minister has much more important things to worry about.

I think Prime Ministers usually have more important things to be briefed about than some idle chancers and their dodgy childcare practices - you know, defence, the economy, stuff like that.....

Mrs Brooks forgot that time and circumstances had made her evolve in this affair from a Monkey to aDecider. In 2007/2008 she was just a Monkey, away from the real decision centres. More than a Monkeyshe was an Enabler, a Media Enabler. Then, in our opinion, she was simply told to have NOTW back up the McCanns and slander Mr Amaral and PJ and she did a pretty good job.

The result was, as both so bitterly found out, that it wasn’t a “slam dunk” case at all.

So what did she expect to happen, then? Seeing as you clearly know her so well......

So Mr Cameron was upset. Really upset. As we said, justifiably so.

And you know this how?

So he lashed out at Rebekah Brooks’s boss, Rupert Murdoch. We think it’s natural for him to have thought he had been played by Mr Murdoch via Mrs Brooks and so acted on it.

Did he now? Was this before or after he sent her messages wishing her ''Lots of love''?

The scandal originated by the phone hacking of murdered schoolgirl Milly Dowler's phone – exposed by Nick Davies of Guardian – presented itself, in our opinion, as the opportunity for that.

Leveson was set up and the McCanns were invited to join the bandwagon as victims of false press stories.

Mr Murdoch was treated like a common delinquent at that Leveson circus where he felt forced to go through the humiliation of showing how badly Alzheimer affects those without Alzheimer.

NOTW had to shut down in a hurry, didn’t it? That’s how upset Mr Cameron was, in our opinion.

You really are an ignorant tosser. The Leveson Inquiry was about a lot more than the McCanns, who were very much bit part players who tagged along as usual, as there is no show without Punch.

We think Mr Cameron realised that Mrs Brooks had no bad intentions. She only wanted to make a bundle of money for News Corp out of Maddie. Even more than it had already made. We do think that her suggestion and Mr Cameron’s acceptance of it were the result of sheer ignorance on both their parts.

Oh, but you have always claimed the press and the government were ''in on it'' So were they ''in on it'' or not?

The fighting between David Cameron and Rupert Murdoch came to a truce because when two lions fight it’s the pack of hyenas who profit and the lions know that well.

Things between them stopped at having only Coulson take the fall.

What a load of cobblers.

Rather little after the expectations created by the self-closing of an entire newspaper but we have grown accustomed to see Lady Justice being very duplicitous: one stern schoolmistress to us common folks and just a smiling red-painted lip easy wench when it comes to you powerful.

Once that “little” quibble was behind them, Mr Cameron had to concentrate on how to get out of the Maddie predicament he had got himself into. He, in our opinion, realised very quickly that he was in a fight with a pack of hyenas who were determined to not concede a single inch without putting up a fight.

Who?Who are these ''hyenas'' with whom he is in a fight?

And, we must say, if it serves any good, we think whoever was delegated this task has played Mr Cameron’s hand very well. It’s a pity this game had to be played at all as we have said before and are here repeating it. A game that shouldn’t have ever existed. After all Mr Cameron is the Prime-Minister. It just goes to show at what level of power we think the game is taking place.

Ah - so now it is mysterious people ABOVE the Prime Minister. So who would they be?

It amazes us how people feed the ridiculous notion that the McCanns and Clarence are players in it.

The tactic was ruthlessly effective. So simple and so effective. Modesty aside, it’s the one we have been using for the last 6 years and will continue to do so: whatever is known cannot be unknown.

You have a lot about which to be modest, Textusa.

So, so simple. And so, so effective. They haven’t invented the eraser of the mind. Yet.

What is seen cannot be unseen. What is known cannot be unknown. Knowledge always replaces ignorance but ignorance can never, ever replace knowledge. To do that, is to pretend.

Ah yes - you usually throw this bollocks in when you have lost track of where you were going and have painted yourself into a corner

A check-mate is much more than a direct and fatal blow to the opponent’s king. And it is only fatal because it has eliminated, in a gradual process, ALL options left to the opponent.

Yadda yadda yadda.........

Each player aims to conquer and to keep conquering advantage over his opponent exactly for that reason. The greater the advantage one gets the more one has means to keep eliminating the opponent’s options. One by one until check-mate.

So with each “known” known, one less “unknown” is to be known and as secrecy is this particular pack of hyenas’ manoeuvrability space, with each revelation it is significantly reduced.

Bollox, bollox, bollox..............

The “6-cleaner” episode was the last squirm between Mr Cameron and Mr Murdoch on this subject. The latter, in our opinion, showing British government that they also had their hands dirty with Maddie's blood and he had ways of revealing the story. We will discard this episode as we perceive it to have been against Mr Cameron, so not his move.

So you are claiming that the story about the cleaners was Murdoch saying to Cameron ''you have your hands dirty with Maddie's blood'' ?Have you been sniffing something you shouldn't again?

We will also discard the “195 new leads” episode. A simply ridiculous excuse as to why nothing was being done as no one knew exactly what to do then. The time when the game between Mr Cameron and the pack of hyenas was in a stalemate.

But we saw the following moves – if we miss any we do apologise.

1. The 3,000 phone calls showing that phone records from that night were indeed compromising.

Where did it show they were compromising, and which individuals made calls of interest?

2. The birth of the 3 Burglars, emerging from an “analysis” of those 3,000 phone calls, this was to show that it was a group. No longer only have an individual involved but a group – a collective endeavour in the fulfilment of the task – PRESENT in PdL on the night of the 3rd;

Yeah - a group of three local burglars. What does that have to do with Cameron?

3. Saying that Ocean Club management kept from authorities the occurrence of burglaries in apartments (or was it they had lost keys of apartments?) prior to that week, with the objective to show that the resort was also involved in that collective task;

No-one has alleged the resort kept details from the authorities

4. The 3 Ocean Club workers with the objective to further confirm Ocean Club was involved;

That's who the Met are investigating. Try to keep up.

5. The UK CW showing that Gerry was Smithman;

Crimewatch didn't show that. People may have concluded that.

6. The assault-spree with 2 episodes and 2 objectives. The first to tell the public Maddie was dead when she was taken from apartment and the second to show the “collectiveness” was not limited to PdL but spread over the Algarve (we also showed that this had a simultaneous objective of blackmailing the PJ into “asking” SY for a liaison officer into their investigation);

You ''showed'' nothing of the kind, you half-witted megalomaniac.

7. The June SY Circus in PdL, with the main objective of getting inside the PJ investigation but also to show that deceased Euclides Monteiro is a person of interest, that the water treatment station is a location of interest, to confirm that Maddie is dead, to show UK Police trusts tracking dogs and to give a window of opportunity for SY to find evidence (we will speak of this later);

Or ''carrying out inquiries'' as the rest of the sane world knows it.

8. The 4 arguido stunt, whereby Murat is brought back into the picture via Malinka and having the Ocean Club now involved with a driver;

No - Murat wasn't brought back. Again carrying out enquiries, all quite normal.

9. The overall exaggerated expenditure of Operation Grange. The Times reported in May this year (after helicopter ride but before invasion), that it was then estimated at 5,350,000£. If the PdL SY Circus cost between 100,000£ and 200,000£, where were the other 26 to 53 similar operations in the past 3 years? And we have read higher estimations than the one referred by The Times. These figures are based on what? Who is providing this information? The 3,5M£ figure represents a daily expenditure of around 5,000£. Every single day. Or of 150,000£ a month. Every single month. Is that realistic? These exaggerated numbers of tax-payers' money being spent on Grange have in our opinion been put out to even further exacerbate the public opinion against the McCanns making their protection much more difficult.

They are subject to FOI and provided in response to this. How would YOU know what was spent. The idea that these sums were exaggerated in order to influence public opinion is nonsensical.

The evident enthusiasm of the all-powerfull McCanns on the day the SY Review was launched in May2011 - video here

All these moves had one thing in common, the McCanns' sour face. A country depleting itself of its resources, visibly making a tremendous effort to find Madeleine and what thanks does it get from her parents? Nothing. As if SY were looking for someone they had vaguely heard of and didn't want to be associated with.

Slowly truth was dripped to the general public and there was nothing that the pack of hyenas could do about it.

Truth?

The public is now convinced that Maddie is dead, that it was a collective doing, that Gerry was seen by the Smiths and that the resort is somehow involved. Where has the word “abduction” gone? Was it abducted as well?

The public have probably been convinced for years that Maddie is dead. The rest is bullshit and wishful thinking on your part.

We just have to go back a year and a half and if anyone had said this then this would be the public status of the case today and there would be an outcry for an immediate residence in a mental institution.

Something with which you are no doubt familiar.

Things did go somewhat awry at the end of last year.

As agreed, the Portuguese did reopen the files but surprisingly refused to open their doors to SY. As the Portuguese say “gato escaldado até da água fria tem medo” (“scalded cat even of cold water is afraid”), PJ isn’t taking any risks whatsoever this time round.

Based on what? The PJ held a briefing with SY and the McCanns,and have met with the Met on numerous occasions

But we think check-mate was planned for last winter and things had to be postponed because Mr Amaral was too idealistic to accept the deal in January 2013 and so forced the Lisbon trial to effectively take place later that year.

Bullshit.

But because of PJ’s “surprising” attitude things had to be speeded up. Now there was the real possibility of PJ’s outcome being close to or spot on to the truth. It would be desirable for closure to be reached after the legal battle in Portugal ended but this and the coming elections left no space for polite deference. Things must move forward.

Whose truth? Yours?Fat chance.

And this is where Britain’s most powerful man, Rupert Murdoch, makes his entrance. In support of Mr Cameron.

Oh here we go - at last.

Mr Murdoch is the man who has Britain’s brains on the palm of his hands. We would say his unholy trinity “The Times - Sky News - The Sun” is indeed itself a religion in UK.

No it isn't.

BBC, or Best Before Civilisation, when compared with its private competitor, Sky News, looks like it’s only a mere regional TV channel that happens to cover the whole territory.

Absolute rubbish. Across the day the BBC news channel averages about twice the audience of Sky News.

The Times and The Sun dominate their respective market.

Also rubbish. The Sun has the highest circulation of the tabloids, although it has fallen massively. The circulation of the Times is way behind the Telegraph and only slightly higher than the Independent.

Someone may be richer – we doubt that – but we are certain no one is as powerful as he is in the UK.

On a scale of 1 to 10 in supporting the McCanns, the public would say Rupert Murdoch is a 12, pushing a 13.

Why would the public say this?

So why would a huge McCann supporter help Mr Cameron hang dry the McCanns? Well, because he is exactly a huge McCann supporter, that’s why. Let us explain.

Oh for fucks sake, get on with it woman

He had the most popular tabloid The Sun (plus NOTW) spinning stories defending them and even had a “serious” reporter, Martin Brunt, fully dedicated to churning out news in favour of the couple. If one can say the British press is largely responsible for this sad farce, Murdoch’s media empire holds one big chunk of responsibility.

That would be the same Martin Brunt who also filmed a piece showing just how far it was to the Tapas, and how poor the visibility was, yes?

No one can be taken to be more pro-McCann than Rupert Murdoch. This fact has bothered him little or nothing until now but with the closure of the subject it will. And it will mean a lot.

He sells papers. He doesn't give a rat's bum about the McCanns beyond that.

If up to now it was completely indifferent to Mr Murdoch to be seen as a McCann supporter, once there’s was the decision to put closure on the subject that stopped being so.

Now, it’s very important for him to drop the act of being pro-McCann.

The McCanns are destined to join the gallery of the all-time most infamous criminals of Britain. With the likes of Jack the Ripper, the Yorkshire ripper and Ian Brady and Myra Hindley.

Oh don't talk bollocks

The McCanns will be infamous not because they were ever gruesome like the ones just named but because of the scale and scope of their crime. Much like Ronnie Biggs. Only bigger. Their crime was the first global one.

Was it really?

Ronnie Biggs had the affection of the populace. Who doesn’t love the audacious even if secretly? Robin Hood, Dick Turpin and Sir Harry Morgan come to mind. They’re infamous but they’re popular.

The McCann will be infamous and unpopular. Very unpopular. To lie about and profit from one’s daughter’s demise is beyond despicable. To be arrogant celebrities because of it is simply sickening.

No one will want to be associated with them. Or with those involved in Maddie’s death and disposal.

You are assuming their arrest, trial and conviction. None of which look at all likely.

The McCanns will be the only personalities to go from sainthood (grieving parents of abducted girl) to demons (they killed her and disposed her body), then back to sainthood (wrongly persecuted by “bungling” police) and finally to demons again (outing of truth).

This time to stay permanently as demons.

The same “church” (justice) that canonised them will forget all about what it did to contribute to that when it will open the gates of the arena where the lions wait.

No one will want to be associated with them. No one. Now is the time to jump off the McCann ship.

So it’s in the full interest of duplicitous Murdoch – as any successful multimillionaire is – to go from a (very significant) McCann supporter to a (very significant) McCann persecutor.

Why? There is no sign of them being charged, so what has changed?

The Sun going back to these good ol' days? We think so.

From the McCann-defender Murdoch a righteous Rupert is to emerge.

Only the opposite of being a pro-McCann serves Mr Murdoch. To sit on the side-lines is to allow unpleasant memories to be recalled. He has visibly to take side against the McCanns.

Why, so they can sue him? Oh, wait...........

Alliances are independent of friendships. They serve mutual interests and last as long as that remains valid. The one between Mr Cameron and Mr Murdoch was not only logical but necessary. It is mutualism at its best: they both benefit from it and both of them come out as absolute victors from the case.

What is the ONLY way that Murdoch can go from pro to anti? It’s to become “one of us”. To become a “mortal” enemy of the McCanns. Ensure his name comes right after Mr Amaral’s when history counts the heads of all those who significantly contributed to the McCanns’s downfall.

Taking into account that The Times article from October had a public retraction, it seems most likely that if this trial is real then it's probably because the The Times 19MAY14 article: “The Met has 37 officers and staff investigating her [Maddie] murder in Portugal in 2007. The Home Office has met costs to date of £5.35 million”.

Keyword here is MURDER. As in “murder they wrote”. The Times wrote it in an article and the McCanns apparently in their claim.

Apparently?? You have no idea what is in their claim, do you? Not one iota....You think this libel action is because the Times used the word ''Murder'' in their article?You have a lot to learn about libel. It is not libellous to describe someone as a murder victim, even if that is unproven.

As it has been widely debated, in UK it’s up to the defendant to prove that the accusation isn’t libel. In this case that The Times is to PROVE it had reasons to write the word MURDER pertaining Maddie.

What accusation? They did not accuse anyone of her murder. And no, they do not have to prove anything of the kind.

And how can The Times prove that? Only one legal document allows that to happen in court: the PJ Files.

That means PJ Files are to be discussed in a British court of law. Discussion about fact. Not about legal interpretations or semantics. The discussion has to be around if there’s sufficient information in files to say MURDER. That and only that is what The Times needs to prove in court.

No it doesn't. The libel action almost certainly refers to the earlier claims in the Times that the McCanns suppressed a report and efit images. Nothing to do with the PJ files. Nothing to do with the use of the word 'Murder'

Is the outcome predicable? If you can answer correctly the question “a rock when dropped falls to the ground or soars to the sky?”, then we think you can predict with some ease the outcome.

Cobblers

And in the midst of this, “Sir” Andy Redwood will appear out of the mist mounted on his white stallion holding in one hand the crucifix to fight demons and on the other the damning evidence that will forever condemn the McCanns.

No he won't.

We wonder if a blue sports bag will make a sudden appearance at some stage. Full of CONCLUSIVE forensic evidence.

No it won't.

Completely speculating, SY could say they are only revealing it then because it was how long it took to get the results back when they found it – and didn’t tell a soul – in Praia da Luz in June.

Don't be ridiculous.

The FSS report? All that is needed to be said is that it was inconclusive. Samples were too small to reach a definite conclusion. After all, that report doesn’t say results weren’t definitely linked to the McCanns, it just said that in the opinion of Lowe there wasn’t enough “evidence-matter” to come to a definite conclusion.

No - and this is the really deceptive part of your post. Nowhere did John Lowe indicate that there was not enough ''Evidence-matter'', a phrase you have invented, to be able to reach a conclusion. That is pure invention on your part, as the liar you are.He never said samples were too small to reach a definite conclusion. That is a barefaced lie.He correctly stated that the results were ''too complex for meaningful interpretation'' That is something entirely different.One can only speculate why Textusa is attempting and failing to deliberately mislead, here.

The plot is simple and how effective it is! Or shall we say will be? If the trial is real, that is.

The Times (wearing Mr Murdoch’s colours) pinning the McCanns down in court and SY (wearing Mr Cameron’s colours) delivering the final and fatal blow. Both lend the necessary realism to the other’s performance. That’s why they need each other.

Rambling bullshit

Chess pieces have no will of their own. They are moved and simply go where the hand that controls them tells them to go.

In chess often a piece is sacrificed for the greater objective. Sent on a suicidal mission. Only it’s not suicide it didn’t have any say in the decision. More like non-volunteer kamikazes.

McCanns are ordered to sue Mr Murdoch in an evident kamikaze move to allow him to be able to boast how it was only because that now disgraced couple – who fooled him for so long and only now were revealing their true nature – had turned on him that truth had finally emerged.

Absolute and complete nonsense, presumably aimed at deceiving her readers

He can even allege that it was the analysis of the files he was forced to do by the McCanns that was the real cause for his change of heart. A moment of revelation, he can say. If the McCanns hadn’t sued him he would have continued a believer to this day!

Brilliant isn’t it?

No, cobblers. You are an idiot.

The first “turn-coat” shot was fired by Mr Murdoch back in October with the The Times reporting the McCanns had withheld the e-fits. In December came a lame retraction, which basically rectracted absolutely nothing of importance.

The mighty Times is not the Daily Express. The Times won't roll over like the Express or like other papers did. It cannot back down before the little and the McCanns are little.

They made an allegation which they subsequently retracted. Quite why the McCanns are suing them in light of this is unclear.

This is why this is a check-mate move. Rupert Murdoch cannot be seen to cower before the McCanns and the McCanns stand no chance against Murdoch. It’s a make or break move for both sides, one made of stainless steel and the other of fine, fragile crystal.

If he wishes to do so, Mr Murdoch can spend in less than an hour the same amount of money as the sum that Team McCann has spent on all direct or indirect legal expenditures including this The Times libel process. This is how asymmetric this conflict is.

So when people see that little fragile car driving straight towards the train, as they do, what they fail to see is that the McCanns have their hands tied to the wheel and the car being controlled remotely.

The McCanns are simply doomed pieces being sent to their doom. They are not doomed pieces wanting to take as many others with them as they can. On the contrary, this move is all about damage control. To take out as few pieces as possible. To sacrifice only those that absolutely need to be sacrificed.

Oh for the love of God........

This will open the whole case to the public. The dam and the flood gates will open up for the rest of the media. The truth – or partial truth as is to be expected– will come literally gushing out.

No it won't.

Mr Cameron and Mr Murdoch will come out of this as heroes.

No they won't

Everyone achieves their goal and everyone is happy. Well, almost everyone.

We think we have shown we’re not naive. We know that as Nadine Gordimer said “facts are always less than what really happened.”

But she also said “The truth isn't always beauty, but the hunger for it is”. If not for anything else, for that reason alone we will be accompanying the whole thing closely.

We will obviously be paying special attention as to what will be determined happened to the body. It has to have been disposed of. So you'd better get it absolutely nailed tight, that part of the plot.

And you seriously imagine a libel action against the Times will supply you with that, do you?

That part is the one that will determine who will accompany the McCanns to the inquisitional fire which is intended to appease the mob.

The 27JUL14 Daily Mail article by Leon Waltson in which Mr Amaral was not insulted was the cannon shot. It gave time for the hyenas to realistically negotiate who is to be sacrificed. Please note the word “realistically”.

Jesus wept, more bullshit.

We hope that whoever is responsible does not fall into the temptation of only sending the T9 alone to the lions.

The final version has to be the closest to truth as is possible. History is not kind with mistakes and this is the making of history.

For all others whitewashing is not having the McCanns charged but for us whitewashing is having only them and the other T7 take the blame.

A suggestion if we may, instead of choosing who really is going to take the fall, we think it would be better to choose who really, really needs to be left out. Without any sort of generosity free-passes. This is a one-time only opportunity.

All of the above still depends on the confirmation that there is such a thing as the McCann v The Times libel trial.

No other press is reporting it. We see only 2 reasons why UK press aren't reporting it: it's not true or it's true but there are reporting restrictions.

Well, that's because you are thick. It takes ages before a case reaches the trial stage. Most never do. The press won't get their snouts in until either they settle or it goes to trial.

Is it subject to an injunction? That would stop short any and all papers from even daring to report it.

Nope.

(https://twitter.com/_dandouglas/status/495209031330701312)

The journalist later tweeted the case reference: “Lots of interest in earlier tweet on Kate, Gerry McCann v @thetimes in High Court. Filed recently. Ref: HQ14D02886. No details yet. #mccann”

Ref number appears to be genuine. HQ14, we think means it was filed this year. If we are right, then it would mean that there has to be a decision sometime 2015. Or during current year.

What we seem to be seeing is a reporter, Daniel Douglas, putting out 2 tweets on the subject. The first one exposing the issue and then following it with a second containing the process ref number, validating the content of the first.

And then silence, from him and all media. Strange for an issue involving Rupert Murdoch and the McCanns.

Daniel Douglas is definitely not a court reporter. He's not even an experienced reporter.

He could have stumbled on McCann v The Times libel trial information by accident, as he does cover legal issues, or he was doing some serious reporting on the issue and his tweets were the gold nugget he was looking for.

Hardly a golden nugget. It means the McCanns have filed a case. That's all it means at present.

Either way his silence after the 2 tweets is very strange.

No it isn't

If it was him stumbling on the information, then his second tweet appears to be some sort of reaction to the attention caused by the first one. Something in the style of “Listen, I wasn’t kidding. To prove this here is the ref number.”

But then why the silence that followed? His “no details yet” leads us to believe that he’s going to continue. Instead there’s silence.

That's because there is no more information available.

If the attention bothered him so, why not just say “Hey, don’t shoot messenger! This is where I got the information.”? And provide a link to the source so everyone could check the credibility of what he had said. Instead, we repeat, he has only offered silence.

Yes, cos journalists always do that. Idiot.

And instead of having stumbled on all this but was the result of intentional digging for something and finding it, wouldn’t he then gloat about it? One would expect something of the sort “I'm good, aren't I? This is where I found it.”

Yes, why not give away his sources.

He simply writes one tweet and then another with a ref number and goes off radar. A reporter with a giant scoop on his lap and shying away from it. That’s more than strange.

No it isn't

There's got to be a reason for so little conversation. Does he want it known, or doesn't he? Distances himself from it or backs it up? He does neither.

I have told you the reason.

We can only speculate. We won’t even go into the possibility of there having been someone – remembering for example a keen student of a journalism course – searching for some little fish off the grid “known” for searching legal matters who would be naive enough to tweet this without realising how the Black Hat machine chews up opponents and so make this finding seem part of his job, of his everyday expedient, by him referencing it.

Oh ffs. It's a court listing. That's all

We all know the reporting profession is not exactly seen well in terms of ethics. Its reputation is far from desirable. The perception most people have of this particular profession is that their professionals are either bought, sold, or the middle-man in doing either.

But we have no reason to denigrate Mr Douglas so we won’t. We're just finding his silence strange but we'e sure he must have a reason.

However, we cannot help noticing a coincidence. This is the second time someone speaks twice and then “stops” speaking. Remember Martin Smith? Mr Smith speaks once in May07, speaks a second time in September that year and then “stops” speaking.

Because the case was shelved. Do try to keep up if you can.

So we wouldn’t put behind us the possibility of Mr Douglas having tweeted once, then tweeted twice and then feel, or made to feel, “motivated” to stop tweeting again about the subject.

Yes, undoubtedly they sent MI5 to bump him off. Oh it's obvious now, I have seen the light.

Only Mr Douglas can confirm or deny any of this. In fact, he’s the only one who can say for certain why he’s gone “silent”. We welcome any and all clarifications if Mr Douglas would be so kind.

I should imagine if he has any sense he will tell you to fuck off.

Our reading of this is that it is genuine but was not supposed to be known. A dormant “bomb” waiting to be activated.

Court proceedings take time. One does not file an action today and heard in court tomorrow. And this action requires swiftness.

A sort of headline like “McCanns sue The Times. First court hearings next week”.

For that to happen, the action has to have been submitted months before.

No shit, Sherlock.

The ref number seems consistent with Royal Courts of Justice reference system. The lists are published online daily and can be checked. Nothing so far, which may mean the case has only got as far as being registered.

And also most of the courts do not sit over the summer.

A time-bomb waiting to be armed. We think the tug of war between the swinger BH and the government BH is at its decisive stage.

Tug of war. What tug of war?

The heavy silence (no one is confirming it and no one is denying it) that surrounds this tells us the decision to put the car on the track and send it forward towards the train has yet to be made. One thing is certain: once that car is put on that track and seen heading towards that train there is no turning back.

Cobblers. It means a case has been filed. Why don't you read up on what happens next, then you could stop making a twat of yourself?

Gratuitous link to a completely unrelated story

Rolf Harris and Sir Cliff Richard (under full presumption of innocence) certainly are an evident show of force on the part of government BH that swinger BH should pay close attention to. No longer is anyone popular enough to confront sucessfully “national" interests” – as in whatever government deems they may be at a certain point in time.

Which swingers? The non-existent ones in PdL?

And it's also showing that UK has had enough of being riddled with scandals. It needs to do some deep cleaning in a closet with too many skeletons. To clean up one the size of the Maddie affair is something the country needs desperately to save its image. Internally and externally.

But we could be wrong. Absolutely off-mark. Reading between the lines where there’s no space between them. All, we repeat, needs confirmation and time will tell.

You are. As usual.

After all, humanity lived from Pythagoras to Galileo Galilei for about 2400 years deluded with the idea that it was the Sun that was going in circles around us. Truth has only been known for a mere 400 years.

You know us. We’re delusional. We let our imagination get the best of us sometimes. So if you wish to do so please ignore all we have said.

Yep. Will do.

Isaac Newton was branded heretic essentially because of what he knew to be true.

Two slight differences. Issac Newton was a man of great intelligence, who was right.Whereas you are a dingbat with the intellect of a pickled walnut, who is wrong.